Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24STCV25491, Date: 2025-06-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV25491 Hearing Date: June 3, 2025 Dept: 40
24STCV25491
Jose Trinidad Diaz v. Kia America, Inc.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER VACATING THE HEARING
ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO SERVE FURTHER
RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (Res. No. 5849)
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint
alleges claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. Defendant complied with the Amended Case
Management Order by filing a supplemental declaration on May 29, 2025, stating
that parties met and conferred, and Defendant believes that the ACMO addressed
the request for production of documents, but not the form interrogatories at
issue.
Plaintiff, as
the moving party, did not comply with the ACMO’s requirement that Plaintiff
articulate whether the opposing party has violated the ACMO. Nor has Plaintiff
filed a reply brief. Accordingly, the hearing on Plaintiff’s motions to compel
defendant to serve further responses to interrogatories remains on calendar.
The hearing on the motion regarding the request for production of documents is
vacated. (M.O. 5/9/25.)
II. ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
served form interrogatories on Defendant on October 15, 2024. Defendant served
responses on December 3, 2024, but the responses were not verified until
January 10, 2025. Plaintiff met and conferred by letter dated February 5, 2025.
The parties reached an impasse on March 10, 2025.
In
opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not address the AMCO and did
not meet and confer pursuant to the AMCO. The motion must be denied pursuant to
the ACMO. Plaintiff’s meet and confer efforts consisted of one boilerplate
letter requesting supplementation on Interrogatory 12.1. Now plaintiff wants
further responses to 15.1 and 17.1 without meeting and conferring on the
reasons those responses are defective.
Plaintiff did
not file a reply brief.
III. DISCUSSION
A motion to
compel further responses to special interrogatories is proper where the
requesting party believes the responses are evasive and incomplete, that an
objection is without merit, or an exercise of the option to produce documents
is unwarranted. (Code
Civ. Proc., sections 2030.300 subd. (a).) The motion must
be accompanied by a meet and confer declaration. (Id. subd. (b).)
Form Interrogatory 12. 1.
Plaintiff is entitled to witness identity and location
information. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2017.010.). Although disclosure may invade
percipient witnesses’ privacy, there is generally no protection for the
identity, addresses and phone numbers of such witnesses except where there is a
risk of physical harm to the witness. (Puerto v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th
1242, 1251–1252.) Their
willingness or unwillingness to testify is not relevant as “witnesses may be
compelled to appear and testify whether they want to or not.” (Id. at
1252.)
Defendant provided the identity of one person by name, but
without contact information, which must be disclosed. Defendant refers
Plaintiff to “purchase/lease contract and service records,” to obtain potential
witness identity and contact information. Defendant must provide contact
information of known witnesses based on information in its possession. While
Defendant may specify the writings from which information can be obtained, this
option is permitted only if “the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate
the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary,
and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially
the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding
party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.230). The circumstances under Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 2030.230 do not apply, and Defendant did not specify any writings in any
detail from which the answer may be ascertained.
Form Interrogatory 15.1
Defendant was required to state facts, identify witnesses, and
identify documents to support each affirmative defense. Defendant’s response is
incomplete. Defendant did not identify a single affirmative defense or the
information requested for each. Instead, Defendant referred Plaintiff to “service
records” to determine this information for himself. The response is evasive,
incomplete, and noncompliant.
Form Interrogatory 17.1
Defendant was required to state each request for admission
that was not an unqualified admission, state facts in support, provide witness
identity and contact information, and all documents to support each response. Defendant
has not supported any of its responses based on “overbroad, unduly burdensome,
and oppressive,” or its contention that Plaintiff seeks proprietary
information. To some of the responses to requests for admission that Defendant
did not admit, Defendant referred Plaintiff to other responses for the answer.
The response is insufficient. Defendant is required to respond specifically to
each question asked. Defendant’s response avoids the obligation to respond
fully.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further
responses to selected form interrogatories is GRANTED. Defendant is ordered to
provide verified, complete, and code-compliant responses, without objection to
interrogatories 12.1, 15.1 and 17.1 within 15 days. The motion to compel
further responses to request for production of documents is taken off calendar.